812 Replacement Rumors

From the table below with the modern GT V12 models the conclusion is that we have to go back more than twenty years to 2002 to register such a small increase in engine power in the new model compared to the previous model, as happens between the 812 SF and the 12 C. The 575 M has 30 cv more than the 550 M and this is precisely the value of the power increase between the 812 SF and the 12 C.
The 575 M with this meager 30 cv increment achieved a time in Fiorano of 1.016 seconds less than the 550 M, but will the 12 C also be able to shave 1 second off the 812 SF's time? I would say it is very, very unlikely or even impossible.
The cv increase is the only similarity because the design progression from the 550 M to the 575 M is at the antipodes of the one that has occurred from the 812 SF to the 12 C. In the former there was a very slight evolution of the design but in the later the change is total and radical.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Does anyone care about the 12C lap time? I think you want to see good lap times from the more aggressive cars - SF90, Competizione, 296. But somehow the 12C and 812 and F12 are above all that. Whenever you’re on track, the mid engined cars are much faster than the 12 cylinder cars in the hands of decent trackday drivers (as opposed to professionals) no matter what the Fiorano times are.

 

Fully agree. The 12C is not a track tool

 

Totally agree they are not track cars but track time is one of many measures used in evaluating sports/super/hyper cars. Not using objective measurements like track, 1/4 mile time in addition to subjective reviews by “qualified “ reviewers is like saying a Prius is a better car by virtue of its splendid propulsion system whereas an V12 Ferrari is a dinosaur pig not worth consideration.
That being said I would never put my GTS against a 296 on the track but who says I can’t have fun doing it. The 812,F12,12C would lay waste to any 60s,70s and 80s front engine (and most mid engine)Ferrari with the AC running.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

Although most owners of a V12 Ferrari are not concerned about lap times, the reality is that from the 575 M to the 812 SF the later model always had a substantial power increase, never less than 60 cv, in relation to the previous model as well as a shorter lap-time in Fiorano, equal to or greater than 1.5 seconds. The logic was always that whoever purchased the new model knew in advance that it was a car with significantly more power than its predecessor and faster.
However, this logic seems to have been broken with the 12 C because whoever buys it knows in advance that its engine power is only 30 cv more than that of the 812 SF which is nothing. What those who buy the 12 C still don't know yet is whether it's faster than the 812 SF or not. We suspect it isn't, and that's why the revelation of the Fiorano lap-time will be conclusive.
Having said that and considering the hypothesis that the 12 C is not faster than the 812 SF and on top of that having a more muffled engine sound, I ask myself what are the possible reasons to buy it as it is much, much more expensive than a 812 SF with very low mileage. Honestly, I can only think two reasons, the first a great empathy with the exterior design language of the 12 C, the second the desire to own the latest V12 Ferrari model.

 

Logic would say these metrics cannot continue forever. Otherwise a model will eventually have 2,000 hp out of the NA V12 and complete the circuit in 1.75 seconds.

But nothing wrong with purchasing an 812 SF and passing on the 12C - the 812SF is a glorious machine!!




Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

Ma, penso, merda se..........

 

I agree that it is not possible to increase the power of the NA V12 indefinitely. But the idea I wanted to convey is that when there is an almost stagnation in power and also in the performance offered by a new model, the paradigm that has been in force since 1995 for the Ferrari modern NA V12 GT doesn't exist anymore.

 

Without a major rework of the engine it’s impossible to increase horsepower much beyond where it is now without assist of some kind. That is why I had hoped for hybrid assist for the 12C. It would have been the least obtrusive from a character/sound point of view although added weight is another story but considering how heavy the 12C is already probably not noticeable.



Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

The third reason I can think, the usability as a daily is better.


Gesendet von iPad mit FerrariChat

 

A Grand Tourer Should not need any more than 800-850hp its not a track car. so instead of HP wars we should be getting the weight down, improving the driving performance, quality of the ride and fuel efficiency and be able to be drive hundreds of thousands of miles without issue and limited maintenance required. This should be standard progression with each new model. Then we can have a 6.0L N/A V12 all day long and enjoy the song that engine sings

 

Knowing that wringing additional power out of NA ICE is nearly impossible, imagine for a moment that development energies were spent reducing weight. Whether it be from advances in material science or simply looking for ways to reduce content, meaningful weight reduction would result in a more enjoyable driving experience. There’s just no reason for the car to approach 2 tons in curb weight. That to me is more important than chasing another 50-100hp.

 

I agree with your sentiment.

 

some things are just regulation related, crush structure for example.
But the cars are just unnecessary big, and no regulation stating that, for as much as I'm aware.
make it 10cm narrower there is your 100kg,
Same with length.
This without using any light weight material.

 

If we can put a man on the Moon, Ferrari can reduce the weight by 100’s of lbs. Of course, that will come with a cost, but that’s how they can continue the NA V12 while still improving performance.

 

Manzoni claims that he was inspired by aviation to design the 12 C but apparently learned nothing from it in terms of weight reduction. I could be wrong but IMO with this latest model Ferrari seems to have stagnated because there isn't any noticeable effort to increase the car performance. The reason could be that Ferrari public company takes the sales targets for granted.

 

Porsche claims otherwise, not to mention that Ferraris were never small cars:


"Unfortunately, the executive doesn’t think there’s much Porsche can do to combat the literal inflation.

The brand doesn’t have much of a choice in how big the 911 and its other sports cars are, however, owing largely to the ever-more-stringent safety regulations in major markets.

More robust crash structures, complex powertrains with turbocharged and hybridized components, modern comfort and technological amenities inside the cabin — all these add weight. This, in turn, means new cars need more power to lug around that weight without sacrificing performance, which means they need more cooling capacity to keep the engine healthy; more speed also leads to larger brakes, which need bigger wheels to house them, which in turn means larger tires. All of these components add up quickly on the scales."


The whole article is here: https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a61739774/porsche-would-build-a-smaller-911-if-it-could/

 

I get all that, but does the 12C need to weigh 33% more than a McLaren 765LT? I understand the 12C is larger, the V12 is heavier, and 765LT benefits from a carbon monocoque, but does the weight penalty need to be 1000lbs? Could a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of material science and strategic adjustments in features change the performance metrics? If the car were 400lbs less in weight (merely fat rather than obese) would the market be willing to pay $200,000 more?

 

I've read the article before,
what they didn't want to mention is that they could make it smaller by using more expensive materials but it would cut their profits.

 

not to mentioned that in Europe tiny 3.7 m long 1.6 m ( i made up nimbers) wide 1.2 t can past crash test which are the same for all.
They JUST DOT CARE.
They offer carbon as an option to earn more money, not to save weight . And you know this is a fact.
Maybe they can't save 300kg per car, but 100-150 easily .
Not to mention that bigger cars need bigger tires, then bigger breaks etc.
No, easier to add turbo, and blame everything on regulations. In this regard Mclaren is clear example that IT IS POSSIBLE.

 

The 765LT did not have to comply with EU's pole-side impact (crash) requirements, that's why the SP3 doors are so thick, the F250 doors are massively thick and so the 12c has quite a lot of necessarily heavy reinforcements as does the Revuelto, etc

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It 's doubtful that a 200k increase in price would go down well with buyers. The 765 is a hardcore mide engined supercar, not comparable IMHO. Even the Pista (the closest Ferrari in ethos) was heavier than the McLaren.

Not really. Some components need a certain physical size. Even F1 are huge these days, because of similar requirements.

McLarens use carbon tubs and other than the Artura, they are not hybrid. The Artura is not that much lighter than the 296, considering that the Ferrari uses an aluminium chassis.

 

We are splitting a lot of hairs here. I just wanted to point out a very simple fact that I am definitely looking forward to enjoying a brand new 6.5 L V2 engine that rev up to 9500 RPMs. I was not lucky enough to get the 812 C but this will be a great second best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The way packaging works is shown in today's F1 cars. The fact that they will diminish the dimensions doesn't mean that they will be lighter too. Many F1 technicans say that they will probably be heavier...